media coverage over the last fortnight has found an abundance of “Are we there yet?” opinion pieces, and a dearth of “Here’s where there might be” informed calculations. I’d like to have heard less from the bored kids in the back seat of the car, and more from an adult in the front with a map.

It's almost like the modern media model (MMM) of employing people who are only qualified to write about tactical politics (compared with something like aspects of "real life" which political policies and decisions affect) is failing us, merely because there's nothing to report. ... But still we're getting made up speculative opinion after made up speculative opinion.

We need to end MMM immediately, or at least force them all to take their annual leave when there's clearly nothing happening.

Last night's RNZ Mediawatch episode tried to do some tracing of where the National Green coalition story came from.

Of course no-one's been paid to beat this story up. A Nat's 'n Greens combo is as natural as peanut butter and ice cream. And there's not a shred of evidence, acknowledgement even, that any palms were greased in bringing that vital news story to an eager readership.

I haven't seen much about the 1st MMP government with Winston and Jim (Bolger, not Anderton) - and later Jenny, who kicked out Winston and went downhill from there.

Wayne Mapp gives it a bit of a go. While he pretty much confines his experience of having been there to generalities he mercifully avoids further flogging the current rancid Green-Nat coalition nonsense when drawing parallels with the present.

One of the irritating - and downright misleading - aspects of the special votes (or rather, media coverage thereof) is that we get a flurry of pseudo-analysis of "How we voted" in the days immediately after election night, all of it based on incomplete data.

Then when we finally have accurate/complete data, the media have moved on. There are exceptions of course, in academic circles and geek-blogs, but by and large there is far less attention given to the real election result than the partial one.

e.g. We now know that results in Labour-leaning areas like Te Atatu, New Lynn and Palmerston North were not as bad for Labour as it appeared on election night. I say "we know", but sadly most of the public won't.

Ain't all over till the volumetrically-challenged woman sings, as they'd say if they were pc-driven. But I agree with your point.

The real election result emanated from the EC, but only in respect of the final tallies in the electorates. Many of us view the real election result as the formation of the new government. I wonder if Winston will announce it alone, or jointly with the leader of the majority party in it?

Some of the electorate final tallies are interesting, such as those where the Green candidate got an electorate percentage significantly above the GP party vote across the nation. James Shaw got 15% of the vote in Wellington Central, where the GP even got 21% of the party vote. So 6% of voters in that electorate were green voters who voted against the leader of the Greens. Any one of them who reads this, please explain your rationale!

Nobody should have to explain their own vote (secret ballot and all, innit); but this is not a surprising result at all, surely. The Greens were transparent about campaigning for the party vote, not the electorate vote; and they didn't expect to win any one electorate, so it would be natural even for Green supporters to choose another local representative to support out of the remaining options.

James Shaw got 15% of the vote in Wellington Central, where the GP even got 21% of the party vote. So 6% of voters in that electorate were green voters who voted against the leader of the Greens. Any one of them who reads this, please explain your rationale!

They wanted to make sure that Nicola Willis wasn't elected, so strategically voted?

I saw James Shaw saying on the tv news that they were hoping to win Nelson, more than once. Let's see how that went.

Labour won the party vote: 41% to National 39%, Greens 7%, NZF 6%, TOP 3%. Nick Smith won the candidate vote (40%) but a third of Nelson Labour voters voted for the Green candidate, Matt Lawrey, who came third with 23% (Labour's candidate got 30%, NZF's got 3%). So the Labour/Green MoU ensured Nick Smith's political survival by splitting the anti-National vote in Nelson.

The bluegreen cabinet minister ought to issue this press release:"My win in Nelson is due to the fact that the leftists in Aotearoa are braindead. If they had produced a genuine collaboration prior to the election, with Labour not standing a candidate to ensure that the popular Green councillor Matt Lawrey got the combined Labour/Green vote, I'd have been defeated. Their decision to go with a fake collaboration instead was a gift from heaven for me. Kiwi voters never like a sham. They always prefer something real. Will the leftists make the same mistake next time? I expect so: leftists never learn from experience. I'd like to thank them for preserving the status quo. Roll on business as usual!"

Looks like substantial personal endorsements for the ALCP candidate (seven times their party vote) and Metiria Turei (triple her party vote). Interesting that TOP came in over their national average - could indicate a progressive tendency amongst Maoris that is masked by their ultraconservative tribal culture & institutions. Also noteworthy is the lack of evidence for any boost to the Maori Party from their official endorsement by the Maori king.

In Waiariki the party votes went as follows: Labour 58%, Maori 19%, NZF 7%, National 5%, Greens 4%, TOP 3%, ALCP/Mana/informals each 1%. I've been rounding off to the nearest whole number and the sum here is 99%, yet there's a notable discrepancy when we look at the candidate vote.

Both Tamati Coffey & Te Ururoa Flavell have been on national television umpteen times & come across as likable, so that substantial voter aversion is puzzling. And Flavell's personal support as candidate being more than double that of his party confirms the Maori king's mana not producing any political consequence here too.

Maori party candidates tended to outpoll the Maori party vote, for the very practical reason that winning an electorate was the only chance the Maori party ever had of getting any representation at all. In their case the party vote would determine how many extra list candidates could come in as well (if any) if, and only if, at least one electorate was won, so the electorate-vote stakes were a lot higher.

Cheers, linger (p3). Apparently I was comparing the final count with the projected final count, in which the left did a bit better than projected. Duh. :)

It's a pretty solid result for the left, and for the right. Very similar turnout for both as 1996 (~34% of enrolled voters each), only with a reduced centre vote. Have to expect the next one to be a huge left swing to whichever parties are left in the mix for 2020 if National goes in here again.

Out of interest, anyone know how many people are cut of the enrolled list each three years for convictions now, and how many get back on in time?

Whatever can be argued for parties using strategies like withdrawing candidates, it both hinders the ability of the party to campaign in that electorate, and risks annoying voters by removing choice, which is never a good thing in my view. I voted for the candidate who I thought would best represent my electorate. That candidate was neither of the two front-runners, which I'm fine with because in my view both front-runners were inappropriate for being my local representative. One of those two (who believed they were entitled to all the "left" votes.. or more accurately all the votes that weren't for the National candidate) tried to convince two different candidates, who they believed were splitting that vote, to stand down. They didn't get their way, and I'd have been really annoyed if they did.

Split voting in electorates simply reinforces to me why we'd be much better off having a preferential system for electorate voting, because it does away with vote splitting and gives voters a better opportunity to get a local candidate who they more closely agree on. That's a good thing for voters, unless your a [most likely but not always a National] voter who tends to see your candidate coast through the middle under FPP, despite the majority preferring someone else if there were a genuine runoff as preferential voting would simulate.

As I'm sure you're aware, though, even split voting only affects the overall outcome under MMP if it's a strategic electorate. That's also why, in the wider scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if Nick Smith wins Nelson or not --- except for the people of Nelson for whom the system denied them the opportunity to choose between two local candidates they'd probably have preferred either of. He was 15th on National's list and was never not going to be in parliament. If the Greens hadn't reached 5% then it might have been significant, but the Greens did reach 5% and regardless of the non-stop media speculation I suspect they were always confident that their base would get them to at least the threshold.

Why criticise the voters of Nelson, or the Labour or the Green parties, for failing to irritate voters by withdrawing candidates who'd show up to meetings and campaign for their respective party votes, and perhaps whom those voters might really want to vote for?

Live on the telly… spotlit against encroaching darknessWinston Peters flanked by Jacinda/James (a sinister duo)and Bill (life with dexter )…

a drum roll<pin drop silence- 5 beats>

…aaaand the winnner is:<pin drop silence – 2 beats>

Winston high-fives Jacinda spins and and low-fives James <raise audio of the start of a horse race- (a tribute to Winston’s years of service)>“They’re off and running freely, with Labour on the inside track!”

A choked snort and low giggleescapes Seymour’s non-event horizonfollowed by a muttering:“Ha ha ha! Fools they spurned me, when only I know what Winston thinks. Me! What an opposition we will be - Misery loves company” He wipes his nose on his sleeve and dissolves into the gathering obscurity- albeit well paid – for the next 3 years.

and that chiluns is how the mighty dynasty of JacWinJim began.Putting the ‘trip’ into tripartite since 2017!…and what a long strange trip it’s been.

Hayley Holt looks to be the second-highest polling Green candidate after Matt Lawrey, presumably due to having a high public profile as television presenter & sportswoman. She got 18% of the candidate vote in Helensville (National 57%, Labour 20%, NZF 6%).

Party vote there was N 56%, L 25%, G & NZF 7%, TOP 2%. So a big personal endorsement for her over & above the party vote. Ranked #14 on the list, she's almost certain to rank higher next election and enter parliament.

Another likely to do so is Teall Crossen, currently #15 on the list. She's an environmental lawyer specialising in climate change law, has represented Pacific countries at the UN. She got 15% of the candidate vote in Rongotai (L 51%, N 25%, TOP 4%, NZF 2%). The Rongotai party vote ran Labour 44%, National 28%, Green 18%, TOP 5%, NZF 4%. Seems quite a hefty bias here against the cabinet minister Chris Finlayson. Have the locals have been irritated by all those treaty claim settlements he has masterminded resolution of? Peculiar. Why punish someone who is righting all those historical wrongs? A hotbed of racism?

Why criticise the voters of Nelson, or the Labour or the Green parties, for failing to irritate voters by withdrawing candidates who'd show up to meetings and campaign for their respective party votes, and perhaps whom those voters might really want to vote for?

Yeah, sometimes playing devil's advocate is a helpful role in the commentariat insofar as it highlights the way significant portions of the electorate think. Remember we tend to operate from the perspective of urban liberals, many of whom see the views of centrists as incomprehensible rather than pragmatic.

Consciousness-raising has always been a fundamental part of Green political culture. Some would argue that it has always been a part of leftist political culture but I would respond by pointing out that, while partly true for progressive folk generally, leftist political culture has historically been based more on deceit than trying to upskill everyone to get them onto the same page.

Labour can redeem themselves via genuinely collaborating with the Greens rather than just pretending. I accept that Jacinda seems sincere, and her policy signals may indeed produce political actions that bring about Green results. If/when it happens, it'll be the first time Labour has walked its talk for as long as most folk can remember. We'll no longer be able to dismiss them as a bunch of hypocrites.

A sustainable society in Aotearoa as a model for the world is feasible if leftists as a whole embrace the goal and commit to working together towards it. The Greens do have the option of trying to get rightists on board with that project, but National's addiction to the growth economy is even deeper-rooted than Labour's, so the prospects of success via the alternate route are currently too dim to consider. As climate change kicks further in, it's bite will start to make the bluegreens realise that fiddling ain't enough, that they need to get real serious fast. When we see evidence of that change in the Nat's political culture the alternate route will become viable. Watch that space!

The Rongotai party vote ran Labour 44%, National 28%, Green 18%, TOP 5%, NZF 4%. Seems quite a hefty bias here against the cabinet minister Chris Finlayson. Have the locals have been irritated by all those treaty claim settlements he has masterminded resolution of? Peculiar. Why punish someone who is righting all those historical wrongs? A hotbed of racism?

You do know Annette King held that electorate for yonks, right? She was pretty well liked, and campaigned very well. I don't even remember who the new Labour candidate was (and it's my electorate) but I wouldn't be surprised if they're benefiting from a long history of the electorate voting Labour. Chris Finlayson felt parachuted in a couple of elections ago, and never really caught on as far as I can tell.

The Labour candidate and new MP is Paul Eagle who was the deputy mayor. He was a very popular Labour city councillor. But Annette King did work hard at securing the electorate as a Labour one. As has Grant Robertson in Wellington Central who won the party vote for the first time in several years.

Thanks, Stephen. If he has no local ties and didn't spend much time campaigning locally that would explain it.

Thanks also Hilary: that would incline many voters to view him as lacking empathy for those victims, and some to conclude that his political judgement was sufficiently flawed to make him unsuitable as a local MP. If I was a Rongotai voter and knew he'd opposed inquiry into state care abuse it would indeed suffice to make me reject him.